Crysis 2 will OWN Halo Reach
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="enterawesome"]Sorry for my abscence, I just went to see a movie with some friends. Anyways, you're confusing me. Why wouldn't the concept of sprint in Halo be a game changing factor when it is apparently in Call of Duty? And even though Call of Duty added sprint, it's still Call of Duty, it didn't alter the concept and play style of CoD to the point where it felt like a completely different game series. You're setting up a double standard here, and I think, as my challenge to you, you should play Reach for more than half an hour, go back and play CE, and then tell me it hasn't evolved.VandalvideoAgain, if you failed to see the difference then you didn't bother reading my post. Merely because both have some of the same changes doesn't make those changes as drastic or as game changing. It is all about how much a particular change affects the core gameplay mechanics. It isn't a question of whether sprint was added, but more of a question of how much sprint and just how much that impacts the actual gameplay. With something like CoD which had been an incredibly slow paced game, the addition of sprint drastically changed the work flow of each individual map and the gunplay mechanics. The pacing of walking had been so tied to how people had played the original Call of Duty that the addition drastically altered the way the game was played. In contrast, Reach wasn't as affected by the addition of Sprint as CoD because Halo had always been a quasi-twitch game to begin with due to low gravity and vehicles. There is much less of a change when one adds sprint to Halo than if one adds it to Call of Duty. Especially when the number of times you can actually use the mechanic, the duration and strength of the mechanic, the gunplay mechanics, and the maps all work together in a specific way to bring about an even more pronounced change. If you want to claim that the addition of sprint didn't drastically alter the flow of Call of Duty then you automatically lose any credibility when it comes to that franchise.Vandal, you're a good guy, and I respect you a lot, but you're last sentence really took everything I said out of context. I NEVER said that sprint didn't affect CoD. It's quite the contrary. Traversing the battlefield was faster and quicker than ever before, although it was never extremely "slow-paced". I acknowledged that and I still do. What I said was that while it still added sprint, anyone could tell it belonged to the Call of Duty series, because the concept and playstyle, with the exception of sprint, has remained largely the same. This was a counter to your point where you stated Halo was not evolving because it added many features, but it still felt like Halo.
And I stand by what I said. AAs are HUGE change for Halo. Since we're on the subject, I'll use sprint as my example. I've played Call of Duty games as well Halo games extensively, and I will tell you right now, sprint in Reach is just about as fast and has around the same duration as Call of Duty. The difference is that in Halo, there's a visual counter at the bottom telling you how much you have. You said that because of low gravity and vehicles, sprint in Reach was not drastic. It is. Maybe you didn't notice, but jump height is reduced in Reach, although I fail to see how that is relative to speed. As for vehicles, that's a massive generalization of the Halo gameplay. It's not as if there's always a ghost or warthog nearby for quicker movement. In fact, only one map in the beta which you played had vehicles at all, the rest had none. So reduced jump height and few vehicles on the maps at hand, yet you're still telling me the constant ability to run at least twice as fast in a fairly slower-paced twitch shooter is a small change, when such a feature has never been around before?
I agree, it will definitely own Halo Reach... in graphics. Everything else, I doubt.Stevo_the_gamer
The graphics in Crysis 2 will be better - without a doubt - but I agree with you. I think that even with Crysis 1, the Halo series has the better pedigree. No I am not following the crowd - reach will be better overall nyah.
. I NEVER said that sprint didn't affect CoD. It's quite the contrary. Traversing the battlefield was faster and quicker than ever before, although it was never extremely "slow-paced". I acknowledged that and I still do. What I said was that while it still added sprint, anyone could tell it belonged to the Call of Duty series, because the concept and playstyle, with the exception of sprint, has remained largely the same. This was a counter to your point where you stated Halo was not evolving because it added many features, but it still felt like Halo.enterawesomeActually, that is false. The play style difference between United Offensive and Vanilla CoD are hugely different. It is like the difference between Tribes and Halo. The gameplay is drastically different, and the core gameplay was dramatically impacted by the addition of sprint, the retooling of the maps, and the addition of vehicles into the gamespace. Even if many of the core elements remained the same, that ignores the fact that some elements can have interplay between them such to an extent where a change in one can have dramatic influence on the others. Even if the bullet mechanics were the same in United Offensive, which they weren't actually, they can still be dramatically shifted by the addition of a single gameplay element.
False. Sprint was something that, in the original Call of Duty, could be accessed by every single person at any time. The modifiers were stronger in United Offensive than they were in Reach. You have admittedly not played UO, while I have. I speak from experience when I say that the sprint in United Offensive was dramatically more varied than the sprint function in Reach. The duration is shorter and only a certain number of people can use it at any given time. Not only that, but the map design greatly hinders the effectiveness of the sprint function to begin with. Even if the values were as you claim, which they aren't, they can still be hindered by map design ultimately negating any great impact they would have on gameplay.And I stand by what I said. AAs are HUGE change for Halo. Since we're on the subject, I'll use sprint as my example. I've played Call of Duty games as well Halo games extensively, and I will tell you right now, sprint in Reach is just about as fast and has around the same duration as Call of Duty.
It is most assuredly not drastic. The sum of all the totals and the effect it has on the gameplay is what is important. The whole "not noticing it" thing is extremely important here. It is all about how the game plays. You can have all the micro changes you want, but if the macro picture doesn't change it means nothing. At the end of the day, the pacing still felt exactly like the original Halo games, or at least no where near as dramatic a change as was felt between United Offensive and Vanilla COD.The difference is that in Halo, there's a visual counter at the bottom telling you how much you have. You said that because of low gravity and vehicles, sprint in Reach was not drastic. It is. Maybe you didn't notice, but jump height is reduced in Reach, although I fail to see how that is relative to speed.
Yes, I'm telling you it is a small change; at least compared to how much Call of Duty changed with the addition to sprint. Remember, evolution is a comparative concept. It matters how much of a change it was from the predecessor. Halo has always been a twitch based game. The addition of new twitch based elements are going to have less of a tangible impact on the overall game than if you add twitch mechanics to a slow paced shooter, which is exactly what the original Call of Duty was. The differences are far more noticeable and far more dramatic in United Offensive, and that is what matters. It isn't what happened on paper (which by the way you have failed to show), but how it actually plays out. And the chances between Reach and the previous Halo games are no where near as dramatic and it still feels like Halo.As for vehicles, that's a massive generalization of the Halo gameplay. It's not as if there's always a ghost or warthog nearby for quicker movement. In fact, only one map in the beta which you played had vehicles at all, the rest had none. So reduced jump height and few vehicles on the maps at hand, yet you're still telling me the constant ability to run at least twice as fast in a fairly slower-paced twitch shooter is a small change, when such a feature has never been around before?
[QUOTE="Funconsole"] Wait you actually MEANT crysis? So you're a CoD fanboy? :? Removal isn't really evolution. MW1/2 took away vehicles, effectively making the gameplay feel like CoD 1/2 again. yes there's killstreaks, and it's twitchy paced, but it's still not evolution in normal terms. Just look at Pokemon (the little things not the series), they evolve, thus their power's increased and they learn better moves :P It wouldn't be evolution if Pikachu evolved into Riachu yet was weaker than PichuVandalvideoTechnically speaking, removal can be evolution. Evolution is merely gradual change over a period of time. If you remove something, it is an evolution. But even if you want to pretend that removal doesn't constitute evolution, which it does, the fact of the matter is that the minor things which were removed in MW2 aren't anywhere near as integral to the base game as the sprint function was in the original Call of Duty games. Overall, Call of Duty still has dramatically more evolution than Halo does, and thats a fact.
Sounds like devolution, depending on what else they add. Just because it "evolves" doesn't mean for the better. If humans now "evolved" to have no hearing, it would be a devolution.
Oh yeah, I'm not a fan of wallo'texts, so remind me never to reply to you. :P
Sounds like devolution, depending on what else they add. Just because it "evolves" doesn't mean for the better. If humans now "evolved" to have no hearing, it would be a devolution.SaltyMeatballsDevolution is a form of evolution technically speaking.
[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]Sounds like devolution, depending on what else they add. Just because it "evolves" doesn't mean for the better. If humans now "evolved" to have no hearing, it would be a devolution.VandalvideoDevolution is a form of evolution technically speaking. Yes it is, but your saying it's good in CoD yet bad in Halo? Why? As the other guy said in his comment, AA adds a lot of changes to Reach that were not previously there in Halo
[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]Sounds like devolution, depending on what else they add. Just because it "evolves" doesn't mean for the better. If humans now "evolved" to have no hearing, it would be a devolution.VandalvideoDevolution is a form of evolution technically speaking. Yes, but they have the term devolution for a reason. Backwards evolution basically, in which removing something is the perfect example (i.e. the vehicle example in MW1/2). Whether the removal of said feature is good or bad; it's subjective either way.
[QUOTE="enterawesome"]. I NEVER said that sprint didn't affect CoD. It's quite the contrary. Traversing the battlefield was faster and quicker than ever before, although it was never extremely "slow-paced". I acknowledged that and I still do. What I said was that while it still added sprint, anyone could tell it belonged to the Call of Duty series, because the concept and playstyle, with the exception of sprint, has remained largely the same. This was a counter to your point where you stated Halo was not evolving because it added many features, but it still felt like Halo.VandalvideoActually, that is false. The play style difference between United Offensive and Vanilla CoD are hugely different. It is like the difference between Tribes and Halo. The gameplay is drastically different, and the core gameplay was dramatically impacted by the addition of sprint, the retooling of the maps, and the addition of vehicles into the gamespace. Even if many of the core elements remained the same, that ignores the fact that some elements can have interplay between them such to an extent where a change in one can have dramatic influence on the others. Even if the bullet mechanics were the same in United Offensive, which they weren't actually, they can still be dramatically shifted by the addition of a single gameplay element.
False. Sprint was something that, in the original Call of Duty, could be accessed by every single person at any time. The modifiers were stronger in United Offensive than they were in Reach. You have admittedly not played UO, while I have. I speak from experience when I say that the sprint in United Offensive was dramatically more varied than the sprint function in Reach. The duration is shorter and only a certain number of people can use it at any given time. Not only that, but the map design greatly hinders the effectiveness of the sprint function to begin with. Even if the values were as you claim, which they aren't, they can still be hindered by map design ultimately negating any great impact they would have on gameplay.And I stand by what I said. AAs are HUGE change for Halo. Since we're on the subject, I'll use sprint as my example. I've played Call of Duty games as well Halo games extensively, and I will tell you right now, sprint in Reach is just about as fast and has around the same duration as Call of Duty.
It is most assuredly not drastic. The sum of all the totals and the effect it has on the gameplay is what is important. The whole "not noticing it" thing is extremely important here. It is all about how the game plays. You can have all the micro changes you want, but if the macro picture doesn't change it means nothing. At the end of the day, the pacing still felt exactly like the original Halo games, or at least no where near as dramatic a change as was felt between United Offensive and Vanilla COD.The difference is that in Halo, there's a visual counter at the bottom telling you how much you have. You said that because of low gravity and vehicles, sprint in Reach was not drastic. It is. Maybe you didn't notice, but jump height is reduced in Reach, although I fail to see how that is relative to speed.
Yes, I'm telling you it is a small change; at least compared to how much Call of Duty changed with the addition to sprint. Remember, evolution is a comparative concept. It matters how much of a change it was from the predecessor. Halo has always been a twitch based game. The addition of new twitch based elements are going to have less of a tangible impact on the overall game than if you add twitch mechanics to a slow paced shooter, which is exactly what the original Call of Duty was. The differences are far more noticeable and far more dramatic in United Offensive, and that is what matters. It isn't what happened on paper (which by the way you have failed to show), but how it actually plays out. And the chances between Reach and the previous Halo games are no where near as dramatic and it still feels like Halo. Oh God, that's a lot of text. Are you usually so in-depth with your debates?As for vehicles, that's a massive generalization of the Halo gameplay. It's not as if there's always a ghost or warthog nearby for quicker movement. In fact, only one map in the beta which you played had vehicles at all, the rest had none. So reduced jump height and few vehicles on the maps at hand, yet you're still telling me the constant ability to run at least twice as fast in a fairly slower-paced twitch shooter is a small change, when such a feature has never been around before?
Alright well... where to start? Okay. Like I said, sprint isa big change for CoD. However,90% of Call of Duty's core game mechanics stay the same. For starters, unless you're a foot away from somebody, you always have to aim down the sights of your weapon. You do so with precision and speed, and it's all about accuracy. There's still a melee hotbutton, which has always been important. It's still just frontline infantry battles, and that's it. No vehicles or advanced sniping (except for All Ghilied Up in MW1), nothing to get in the way of pure, unadulterated infantry combat. Sprint adds a new layer of strategy, but it's still CoD by name and design, and that is a fact.
One of your arguments for sprint's greater impact in CoD was that everybody had access to it, whereas they don't in Halo. That's not necessarily true, since everyone CAN access sprint if they choose to. And if they don't, they get other abilities, which I already covered, with just as much impact as sprint. But your entire argument is based on relativty. I cannot tell you EXACTLY how relative the evolutions in Halo are, it's impossible to weigh additions in a digital medium and compare them to another with conclusive results. All I can give you is a HUGE list of evolutions Halo has made, like new features and enhancements.
As a side note, what did I fail toshow on paper? How it plays out? What is that? You can't criticize me for failing some abstract objective I was never given or sought out to do.
Like I said, sprint isa big change for CoD. However,90% of Call of Duty's core game mechanics stay the same. For starters, unless you're a foot away from somebody, you always have to aim down the sights of your weapon. You do so with precision and speed, and it's all about accuracy. There's still a melee hotbutton, which has always been important. It's still just frontline infantry battles, and that's it. No vehicles or advanced sniping (except for All Ghilied Up in MW1), nothing to get in the way of pure, unadulterated infantry combat. Sprint adds a new layer of strategy, but it's still CoD by name and design, and that is a fact.enterawesomeEven when you have straight up infantry combat there are still different types of infantry combat sub-genres in FPS games. There are squad based games like SWAT, there are twitch based games like Quake, and there are methodical games like CoD where you fight for every inch. The addition of sprint interplays with the other gameplay elements to drastically change the way the game was played. It wasn't as slow or methodical anymore. People weren't peaking every single corner looking for slight changes in texture and popping off shots from the other side of the map. Instead, you had people dancing across the map and doing all kinds of crazy manuevers to close the gap. Call of Duty evolved from the slow, methodical type of shooter like America's Army into something more akin to a slower version of Quake. No where near as fast, but definitely not the slow, methodical play of the original. That is a huge difference when you compare inter-subgenre changes like more twitch to a twitch game. (Halo)
Assuming that every at the same time were to use the sprint layout, but how likely is that to happen? Sprint, compared to the other armours, had less utility and very rarely did I find people using it. More often people would use armour lock or jet packs because of the utility these armours offered. Also, even if everyone suddenly adopted a sprint lay out the sprint function is still relatively week because of the limitations placed on it by the map design. Comparatively speaking, sprint doesn't mean much in Halo compared to Call of Duty. Especially when Halo has always been about twitch combat to begin with. Also, it is easy to measure evolutions simply by how a game plays. It is more about the macro image than the micro image. The fact of the matter is that Halo Reach still feels and plays like Halo. United Offensive DOES NOT feel like the original vanilla Call of Duty.One of your arguments for sprint's greater impact in CoD was that everybody had access to it, whereas they don't in Halo. That's not necessarily true, since everyone CAN access sprint if they choose to. And if they don't, they get other abilities, which I already covered, with just as much impact as sprint. But your entire argument is based on relativty. I cannot tell you EXACTLY how relative the evolutions in Halo are, it's impossible to weigh additions in a digital medium and compare them to another with conclusive results. All I can give you is a HUGE list of evolutions Halo has made, like new features and enhancements.
Design notes; velocity specifications, duration times, cool-down times, etc.As a side note, what did I fail to show on paper? How it plays out? What is that? You can't criticize me for failing some abstract objective I was never given or sought out to do.
[QUOTE="enterawesome"]Like I said, sprint isa big change for CoD. However,90% of Call of Duty's core game mechanics stay the same. For starters, unless you're a foot away from somebody, you always have to aim down the sights of your weapon. You do so with precision and speed, and it's all about accuracy. There's still a melee hotbutton, which has always been important. It's still just frontline infantry battles, and that's it. No vehicles or advanced sniping (except for All Ghilied Up in MW1), nothing to get in the way of pure, unadulterated infantry combat. Sprint adds a new layer of strategy, but it's still CoD by name and design, and that is a fact.VandalvideoEven when you have straight up infantry combat there are still different types of infantry combat sub-genres in FPS games. There are squad based games like SWAT, there are twitch based games like Quake, and there are methodical games like CoD where you fight for every inch. The addition of sprint interplays with the other gameplay elements to drastically change the way the game was played. It wasn't as slow or methodical anymore. People weren't peaking every single corner looking for slight changes in texture and popping off shots from the other side of the map. Instead, you had people dancing across the map and doing all kinds of crazy manuevers to close the gap. Call of Duty evolved from the slow, methodical type of shooter like America's Army into something more akin to a slower version of Quake. No where near as fast, but definitely not the slow, methodical play of the original. That is a huge difference when you compare inter-subgenre changes like more twitch to a twitch game. (Halo)
Assuming that every at the same time were to use the sprint layout, but how likely is that to happen? Sprint, compared to the other armours, had less utility and very rarely did I find people using it. More often people would use armour lock or jet packs because of the utility these armours offered. Also, even if everyone suddenly adopted a sprint lay out the sprint function is still relatively week because of the limitations placed on it by the map design. Comparatively speaking, sprint doesn't mean much in Halo compared to Call of Duty. Especially when Halo has always been about twitch combat to begin with. Also, it is easy to measure evolutions simply by how a game plays. It is more about the macro image than the micro image. The fact of the matter is that Halo Reach still feels and plays like Halo. United Offensive DOES NOT feel like the original vanilla Call of Duty.One of your arguments for sprint's greater impact in CoD was that everybody had access to it, whereas they don't in Halo. That's not necessarily true, since everyone CAN access sprint if they choose to. And if they don't, they get other abilities, which I already covered, with just as much impact as sprint. But your entire argument is based on relativty. I cannot tell you EXACTLY how relative the evolutions in Halo are, it's impossible to weigh additions in a digital medium and compare them to another with conclusive results. All I can give you is a HUGE list of evolutions Halo has made, like new features and enhancements.
Design notes; velocity specifications, duration times, cool-down times, etc. So what you're asking of a Halo game is to not be a Halo game? You have unrealistic expectations. You can't fault Bungie for making Halo like Halo, but while adding lot's of cool new additions. Even still Halo Wars was certainly not like any Halo game. Now you're theory on gameplay evolution is interesting, as you say it's by pure feel of the gameplay. If that is so, I'll offer an example of how I feel: Call of Duty 4 was the first CoD game I'd ever played. Keep in mind I haven't played UO, but I like to think CoD4 was the biggest change to the franchise it had ever gone through. Besides the new setting, the multiplayer was practically redone with perks and killstreaks. Having read some reviews online, I picked up CoD2. CoD2 did NOT have sprint. Yet what happened? I breezed through the game on Regular without even glancing at how the controls were layed out, or figuring out different play styles. Much in the same way you went into the Reach beta thinking, "Yup, this is Halo", I went into CoD2 thinking, "Yup, this of CoD", only I had fun. The gameplay felt so familiar, and I never even thought about it until now. But that's just me. As for those design notes, I can't offer those, I don't work at Bungie and I don't have the formulas for movement and jumping. You'll have to take my word for it, for what it's worth.As a side note, what did I fail to show on paper? How it plays out? What is that? You can't criticize me for failing some abstract objective I was never given or sought out to do.
So what you're asking of a Halo game is to not be a Halo game? You have unrealistic expectations. You can't fault Bungie for making Halo like Halo, but while adding lot's of cool new additions. Even still Halo Wars was certainly not like any Halo game.enterawesomeNo, I'm asking for Bungie to differentiate themselves when they make another Halo. The gameplay is far too similar to the previous games in how it plays. The twitch mechanics, for all the additions that were made, still feel and play very much like the twitch mechanics of the predecessors. Think of it as if all the additions and subtractions evened out. For all the twitch mechanics they added, and the things they changed, the pace is still very much like the original Halos. I'm not asking for them to make an entirely new game, but merely to change it up significantly enough to where it doesn't feel like I'm playing essentially the same thing for the third or fourth time. I've already spent enough money on this gameplay, and I want something divergent.
And this just shows how little experience you have with the Call of Duty franchise. Call of Duty 2's pacing mechanics had already been dramatically increased after United Offensive. The pacing mechanics between Call of Duty 2 and Modern Warfare 2 are still relatively similar. I never claimed that the vast majority of the evolution happened between these two games to begin with. (Although there was a great deal of evolution between Call of Duty 2 and MW2 in other areas which did make a significant difference in how the game was played) The major changes happened between CoD1, UO, and CoD2 which makes up the bulk of the franchise. MW2, if anything, is less of a game than United Offensive was. Remember, I had stated that Call of Duty, as a whole, had more evolution than Halo. That mean that, even if there wasn't as much evolution between the later games, that is more than made up for by the evolution within the original games. I actually pointed this out in the beginning when I clarified that, "There is more evolution between United Offensive and Vanilla than the entire Halo franchise". That is primarily where I'm focusing my efforts. If you want to understand the argument, go back and play CoD 1 and UO and you'll see the dramatic change in how the game is played. Also, I never claimed that I didn't get bored with Call of Duty at some point. In fact, I have. I merely claimed that the less evolution, the faster I get bored with a franchise. Halo has far less evolution than Call of Duty, so I got bored with it faster. Simple.Now you're theory on gameplay evolution is interesting, as you say it's by pure feel of the gameplay. If that is so, I'll offer an example of how I feel: Call of Duty 4 was the first CoD game I'd ever played. Keep in mind I haven't played UO, but I like to think CoD4 was the biggest change to the franchise it had ever gone through. Besides the new setting, the multiplayer was practically redone with perks and killstreaks. Having read some reviews online, I picked up CoD2. CoD2 did NOT have sprint. Yet what happened? I breezed through the game on Regular without even glancing at how the controls were layed out, or figuring out different play styles. Much in the same way you went into the Reach beta thinking, "Yup, this is Halo", I went into CoD2 thinking, "Yup, this of CoD", only I had fun. The gameplay felt so familiar, and I never even thought about it until now. But that's just me.
As someone who has played all of the Call of Duty franchise and has played the Halo games, I can speak extensively about the relative amount of evolution when you compare the two genres, which is what my post has been about. The difference between the Halo games is minuscule when you compare the difference between UO and Vanilla CoD.As for those design notes, I can't offer those, I don't work at Bungie and I don't have the formulas for movement and jumping. You'll have to take my word for it, for what it's worth.
As someone who has played all of the Call of Duty franchise and has played the Halo games, I can speak extensively about the relative amount of evolution when you compare the two genres, which is what my post has been about. The difference between the Halo games is minuscule when you compare the difference between UO and Vanilla CoD.Vandalvideo
I've played all of these games, and the fact that Halo has not "evolved" to your expectations seems to be something affecting you more than others, and is therefore an issue of preference and not an issue of an overall standard of quality.
I've played all of these games, and the fact that Halo has not "evolved" to your expectations seems to be something affecting you more than others, and is therefore an issue of preference and not an issue of an overall standard of quality.tempest91"Overall standards of quality" are inherently subjective beasts. I've already admitted that I was speaking for myself when I say, "I get bored with games which fail to evolve dramatically". If there are others out there who are the same, so be it. I'm just merely expressing my own personal discontent with Reach and how the franchise is progressing. If others are happy with what Bungie gives them, more power to them. My argument has nothing to do with them.
[QUOTE="tempest91"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]I agree, it will definitely own Halo Reach... in graphics. Everything else, I doubt.blues35301
So, in everything that matters, Reach wins.
Idk about that. The original Crysis owns every halo game combined in every single aspect....well except mp. But mp isn't a big deal to me.campaign prepares an amazing table....but multiplayer is your meal. I could eat it every day.....forever. lol, this thread has gotten ridiculous. you guys type, I'll play halo.
[QUOTE="enterawesome"]So what you're asking of a Halo game is to not be a Halo game? You have unrealistic expectations. You can't fault Bungie for making Halo like Halo, but while adding lot's of cool new additions. Even still Halo Wars was certainly not like any Halo game.VandalvideoNo, I'm asking for Bungie to differentiate themselves when they make another Halo. The gameplay is far too similar to the previous games in how it plays. The twitch mechanics, for all the additions that were made, still feel and play very much like the twitch mechanics of the predecessors. Think of it as if all the additions and subtractions evened out. For all the twitch mechanics they added, and the things they changed, the pace is still very much like the original Halos. I'm not asking for them to make an entirely new game, but merely to change it up significantly enough to where it doesn't feel like I'm playing essentially the same thing for the third or fourth time. I've already spent enough money on this gameplay, and I want something divergent.
And this just shows how little experience you have with the Call of Duty franchise. Call of Duty 2's pacing mechanics had already been dramatically increased after United Offensive. The pacing mechanics between Call of Duty 2 and Modern Warfare 2 are still relatively similar. I never claimed that the vast majority of the evolution happened between these two games to begin with. (Although there was a great deal of evolution between Call of Duty 2 and MW2 in other areas which did make a significant difference in how the game was played) The major changes happened between CoD1, UO, and CoD2 which makes up the bulk of the franchise. MW2, if anything, is less of a game than United Offensive was. Remember, I had stated that Call of Duty, as a whole, had more evolution than Halo. That mean that, even if there wasn't as much evolution between the later games, that is more than made up for by the evolution within the original games. I actually pointed this out in the beginning when I clarified that, "There is more evolution between United Offensive and Vanilla than the entire Halo franchise". That is primarily where I'm focusing my efforts. If you want to understand the argument, go back and play CoD 1 and UO and you'll see the dramatic change in how the game is played. Also, I never claimed that I didn't get bored with Call of Duty at some point. In fact, I have. I merely claimed that the less evolution, the faster I get bored with a franchise. Halo has far less evolution than Call of Duty, so I got bored with it faster. Simple.Now you're theory on gameplay evolution is interesting, as you say it's by pure feel of the gameplay. If that is so, I'll offer an example of how I feel: Call of Duty 4 was the first CoD game I'd ever played. Keep in mind I haven't played UO, but I like to think CoD4 was the biggest change to the franchise it had ever gone through. Besides the new setting, the multiplayer was practically redone with perks and killstreaks. Having read some reviews online, I picked up CoD2. CoD2 did NOT have sprint. Yet what happened? I breezed through the game on Regular without even glancing at how the controls were layed out, or figuring out different play styles. Much in the same way you went into the Reach beta thinking, "Yup, this is Halo", I went into CoD2 thinking, "Yup, this of CoD", only I had fun. The gameplay felt so familiar, and I never even thought about it until now. But that's just me.
As someone who has played all of the Call of Duty franchise and has played the Halo games, I can speak extensively about the relative amount of evolution when you compare the two genres, which is what my post has been about. The difference between the Halo games is minuscule when you compare the difference between UO and Vanilla CoD.You can't just say I have little experience with CoD because I didn't play them in order. I've played all of them, just not UO. In fact, I played CoD1 after CoD2 and jumped into that rather easily, save for some issues in adusting to the keyboard/mouse controls from a gamepad. Regardless, this isn't getting anywhere. Halo has very much evolved, and I'm absolutely sure of that, I don't know how else I can convey it. Regenerative health, dual weilding, loadouts, persistent ranking, etc. But I guess Halo could be an RTS and it would still be more of the same gameplay...As for those design notes, I can't offer those, I don't work at Bungie and I don't have the formulas for movement and jumping. You'll have to take my word for it, for what it's worth.
Idk about that. The original Crysis owns every halo game combined in every single aspect....well except mp. But mp isn't a big deal to me.[QUOTE="blues35301"][QUOTE="tempest91"]
So, in everything that matters, Reach wins.
lespaul1919
campaign prepares an amazing table....but multiplayer is your meal. I could eat it every day.....forever. lol, this thread has gotten ridiculous. you guys type, I'll play halo.
Pretty much. A game can "evolve" a lot and still suck, I'm glad this evolution argument is only between two people.Here you go (Scroll down a bit to find the questions answered) The only thing Crysis 2 beats Halo in is graphics but everything else, the stuff that matters, Halo OWNS Crysis[QUOTE="Funconsole"][QUOTE="Instashot"] Yeah, the Sandbox 3 engine will make Forge look like a little kids toy. When you can make missions, maps, you name it from scratch on forge, tell me.Instashot
Yet Crysis beat out Halo in 2007 for best FPS, hmmm. Crysis>>Halo
Crysis is on another level in terms of gameplay.
I don't think you can legitimately stake this claim when such a large proportion of Crysis's game mechanics mirror those of Halo. For instance: regenerating health, dedicated grenade button, dedicated melee button, seamless vehicle sections, two primary weapon limit,.
The only unique factor is the nanosuit. Even at that, Halo has all the gameplay mechanics it introduces, but employs them differently. On the other hand, I think Halo is clearly superior to Crysis in gunplay, vehicle gameplay, enemies, and weapons.
[QUOTE="Instashot"]
[QUOTE="Funconsole"] Here you go (Scroll down a bit to find the questions answered) The only thing Crysis 2 beats Halo in is graphics but everything else, the stuff that matters, Halo OWNS CrysisMark36111
Yet Crysis beat out Halo in 2007 for best FPS, hmmm. Crysis>>Halo
Crysis is on another level in terms of gameplay.
I don't think you can legitimately stake this claim when such a large proportion of Crysis's game mechanics mirror those of Halo. For instance: regenerating health, dedicated grenade button, dedicated melee button, seamless vehicle sections, two primary weapon limit,.
The only unique factor is the nanosuit. Even at that, Halo has all the gameplay mechanics it introduces, but employs them differently. On the other hand, I think Halo is clearly superior to Crysis in gunplay, vehicle gameplay, enemies, and weapons.
Those are generic qualities of almost any FPS shooter today. Comparing games just based on "weapons", vs the sandbox style gameplay in Crysis is idiotic. Gunplay/vehicular gameplay is arguable. Crysis is one of the most refined FPS game in the genre.
[QUOTE="Mark36111"][QUOTE="Instashot"]
Yet Crysis beat out Halo in 2007 for best FPS, hmmm. Crysis>>Halo
Crysis is on another level in terms of gameplay.
Dynafrom
I don't think you can legitimately stake this claim when such a large proportion of Crysis's game mechanics mirror those of Halo. For instance: regenerating health, dedicated grenade button, dedicated melee button, seamless vehicle sections, two primary weapon limit,.
The only unique factor is the nanosuit. Even at that, Halo has all the gameplay mechanics it introduces, but employs them differently. On the other hand, I think Halo is clearly superior to Crysis in gunplay, vehicle gameplay, enemies, and weapons.
Those are generic qualities of almost any FPS shooter today. Comparing games just based on "weapons", vs the sandbox style gameplay in Crysis is idiotic. Gunplay/vehicular gameplay is arguable. Crysis is one of the most refined FPS game in the genre.His contention was that Crysis "is on another level in terms of gameplay" from Halo. Obviously it isn't if its core mechanics are "generic qualities of almost any FPS shooter today."
Those are generic qualities of almost any FPS shooter today. Comparing games just based on "weapons", vs the sandbox style gameplay in Crysis is idiotic. Gunplay/vehicular gameplay is arguable. Crysis is one of the most refined FPS game in the genre.[QUOTE="Dynafrom"][QUOTE="Mark36111"]
I don't think you can legitimately stake this claim when such a large proportion of Crysis's game mechanics mirror those of Halo. For instance: regenerating health, dedicated grenade button, dedicated melee button, seamless vehicle sections, two primary weapon limit,.
The only unique factor is the nanosuit. Even at that, Halo has all the gameplay mechanics it introduces, but employs them differently. On the other hand, I think Halo is clearly superior to Crysis in gunplay, vehicle gameplay, enemies, and weapons.
Mark36111
His contention was that Crysis "is on another level in terms of gameplay" from Halo. Obviously it isn't if its core mechanics are "generic qualities of almost any FPS shooter today."
Maybe not on "Another level" but I'll highly agree that the sandbox/on the run weapon customizability/nanosuit does make it have superior gameplay to Halo 3.
Now as far as Reach vs Crysis 2 goes... I don't know.
[QUOTE="magnax1"]
Everything about reach looks better to me,but I'm a big halo fan. Heck even the graphics look just as good.
Eggimannd
They look pretty darn good but I really don't see how you can think they "look just as good" as Crysis 2. They really don't. :?
Xbox 360 vs xbox 360? Yeah, they do. Maybe not technically, but the overall design looks better to me. Obviously not PC vs 360 though.
[QUOTE="Eggimannd"]
[QUOTE="magnax1"]
Everything about reach looks better to me,but I'm a big halo fan. Heck even the graphics look just as good.
magnax1
They look pretty darn good but I really don't see how you can think they "look just as good" as Crysis 2. They really don't. :?
Xbox 360 vs xbox 360? Yeah, they do. Maybe not technically, but the overall design looks better to me. Obviously not PC vs 360 though.
They might look "visually" more pleasing to you. But it's impossible for you to think that the graphics on a technical level look just as good.
[QUOTE="magnax1"]
[QUOTE="Eggimannd"]
They look pretty darn good but I really don't see how you can think they "look just as good" as Crysis 2. They really don't. :?
Eggimannd
Xbox 360 vs xbox 360? Yeah, they do. Maybe not technically, but the overall design looks better to me. Obviously not PC vs 360 though.
They might look "visually" more pleasing to you. But it's impossible for you to think that the graphics on a technical level look just as good.
Crysis
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-crysis-2/101432
Halo
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/sdcc-10-halo-reach/702034
Halo looks a little better to me. You can't say that Xbox 360 Crysis is far technically superior to Halo though, or the other way around.
[QUOTE="Eggimannd"]
[QUOTE="magnax1"]
Xbox 360 vs xbox 360? Yeah, they do. Maybe not technically, but the overall design looks better to me. Obviously not PC vs 360 though.
magnax1
They might look "visually" more pleasing to you. But it's impossible for you to think that the graphics on a technical level look just as good.
Crysis
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-crysis-2/101432
Halo
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/sdcc-10-halo-reach/702034
Halo looks a little better to me. You can't say that Xbox 360 Crysis is far technically superior to Halo though, or the other way around.
"Far" technically superior? Maybe not. Superior graphics technically? Absolutely 100%.
[QUOTE="magnax1"]
[QUOTE="Eggimannd"]
They might look "visually" more pleasing to you. But it's impossible for you to think that the graphics on a technical level look just as good.
Eggimannd
Crysis
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-crysis-2/101432
Halo
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/sdcc-10-halo-reach/702034
Halo looks a little better to me. You can't say that Xbox 360 Crysis is far technically superior to Halo though, or the other way around.
"Far" technically superior? Maybe not. Superior graphics technically? Absolutely 100%.
No, not 100%. From what I've watched reach looks better. Better explosive effects, and far better looking character models. Crysis has better textures.
[QUOTE="siddhu33"]
[QUOTE="alberth123123"]crysis is all about graphics ... everything else is nothing special (specially the multiplayer)erglesmergle
Wrong.
Crysis didn't just get 9.5 for graphics alone. I think that you have either not played the game properly, or have heard from people on forums.
It got 9.5, because it has awesome sandbox gameplay, that manages to pace the story extremely well, despite the actual story being a total POS.
I played the game properly.
*run through jungle*
Korean guy: "Die Die!"
*shoot him. superspeed. shoot him. superspeed. armor. shoot them.
*pick up transmitter*
Teammate: "Leave me to air command"
You: "Im picking you up now. Stay there"
*super speed. super strength. jump on rock. meet teammate. get in vehicles*
Teammate: "Oh no. So many Koreans."
*shoot them. shoot cars. shoot Koreans. get on mountain.
Team: "More Koreans"
Koreans: "Die Die!"
*armor. shoot them. super speed. run to harbor*
You: "Oh no. More Koreans.
Korean: "Die Die!"
-----REPEAT ENTIRE PROCESS-----
So much fun. 9.5!!!
that's so true
[QUOTE="erglesmergle"][QUOTE="siddhu33"]
Wrong.
Crysis didn't just get 9.5 for graphics alone. I think that you have either not played the game properly, or have heard from people on forums.
It got 9.5, because it has awesome sandbox gameplay, that manages to pace the story extremely well, despite the actual story being a total POS.
alberth123123
I played the game properly.
*run through jungle*
Korean guy: "Die Die!"
*shoot him. superspeed. shoot him. superspeed. armor. shoot them.
*pick up transmitter*
Teammate: "Leave me to air command"
You: "Im picking you up now. Stay there"
*super speed. super strength. jump on rock. meet teammate. get in vehicles*
Teammate: "Oh no. So many Koreans."
*shoot them. shoot cars. shoot Koreans. get on mountain.
Team: "More Koreans"
Koreans: "Die Die!"
*armor. shoot them. super speed. run to harbor*
You: "Oh no. More Koreans.
Korean: "Die Die!"
-----REPEAT ENTIRE PROCESS-----
So much fun. 9.5!!!
that's so trueHalo 3
*run through jungle*
Grunt: "Die Die!"
*shoot him. Maybe throw grenade*
*Save teammate*
Teammate: "Thanks"
*continue walking through forest*
*get in vehicle maybe*
Teammate: "Oh no. So many Aleins."
*shoot them. Shoot the Aliens. T-bag.*
Team: "More Aliens"
Grunt: "Die Die!"
*Shoot. Shoot. Shoot.*
You: "Oh no. I need a weapon."
Alien: "Die Die!"
-----REPEAT ENTIRE PROCESS-----
So much fun. 9.5!!!
Okay that's the Gamespot world, let's look at the real world. In the real world Halo is a more acclaimed franchise than Crysis, and it's garnered all its acclaim without having to resort to reliance on graphics like Crysis. Ya ya ya I've heard the whole "BUT CRYSIS HAS THE BEST GAMEPLAY" argument before. It has good gameplay, sure. But is it the best? Do I think it's as fun as Halo? Single player is prolly better than Halo but does the single player have the same depth and fun factor as Halo's MP? I don't think so.
that's so true[QUOTE="alberth123123"][QUOTE="erglesmergle"]
I played the game properly.
*run through jungle*
Korean guy: "Die Die!"
*shoot him. superspeed. shoot him. superspeed. armor. shoot them.
*pick up transmitter*
Teammate: "Leave me to air command"
You: "Im picking you up now. Stay there"
*super speed. super strength. jump on rock. meet teammate. get in vehicles*
Teammate: "Oh no. So many Koreans."
*shoot them. shoot cars. shoot Koreans. get on mountain.
Team: "More Koreans"
Koreans: "Die Die!"
*armor. shoot them. super speed. run to harbor*
You: "Oh no. More Koreans.
Korean: "Die Die!"
-----REPEAT ENTIRE PROCESS-----
So much fun. 9.5!!!
AAllxxjjnn
Halo 3
*run through jungle*
Grunt: "Die Die!"
*shoot him. Maybe throw grenade*
*Save teammate*
Teammate: "Thanks"
*continue walking through forest*
*get in vehicle maybe*
Teammate: "Oh no. So many Aleins."
*shoot them. Shoot the Aliens. T-bag.*
Team: "More Aliens"
Grunt: "Die Die!"
*Shoot. Shoot. Shoot.*
You: "Oh no. I need a weapon."
Alien: "Die Die!"
-----REPEAT ENTIRE PROCESS-----
So much fun. 9.5!!!
This brings up a good point, all FPS gameplay is at its core basically a bunch of the same elements, it's just who can do the little things better that makes or breaks an FPS.that's so true[QUOTE="alberth123123"][QUOTE="erglesmergle"]
I played the game properly.
*run through jungle*
Korean guy: "Die Die!"
*shoot him. superspeed. shoot him. superspeed. armor. shoot them.
*pick up transmitter*
Teammate: "Leave me to air command"
You: "Im picking you up now. Stay there"
*super speed. super strength. jump on rock. meet teammate. get in vehicles*
Teammate: "Oh no. So many Koreans."
*shoot them. shoot cars. shoot Koreans. get on mountain.
Team: "More Koreans"
Koreans: "Die Die!"
*armor. shoot them. super speed. run to harbor*
You: "Oh no. More Koreans.
Korean: "Die Die!"
-----REPEAT ENTIRE PROCESS-----
So much fun. 9.5!!!
AAllxxjjnn
Halo 3
*run through jungle*
Grunt: "Die Die!"
*shoot him. Maybe throw grenade*
*Save teammate*
Teammate: "Thanks"
*continue walking through forest*
*get in vehicle maybe*
Teammate: "Oh no. So many Aleins."
*shoot them. Shoot the Aliens. T-bag.*
Team: "More Aliens"
Grunt: "Die Die!"
*Shoot. Shoot. Shoot.*
You: "Oh no. I need a weapon."
Alien: "Die Die!"
-----REPEAT ENTIRE PROCESS-----
So much fun. 9.5!!!
you forgot the scarab
just let put what ppl want in another corner and see the thing from other site , crysis 2 not made for consoles and it gonna be bad at consoles with low fps ets but at pc it gonna be rocks , but if u want to play it with full Graphic u have to get a pc with ur full pocket and thats gonna make u go to hallow that gonna be 60 fps at xbox with good graphic and other things .
btw i didint play halow or crysis nothing encourage me to play them even that i own good computer and xbox360 !.
Again, if you failed to see the difference then you didn't bother reading my post. Merely because both have some of the same changes doesn't make those changes as drastic or as game changing. It is all about how much a particular change affects the core gameplay mechanics. It isn't a question of whether sprint was added, but more of a question of how much sprint and just how much that impacts the actual gameplay. With something like CoD which had been an incredibly slow paced game, the addition of sprint drastically changed the work flow of each individual map and the gunplay mechanics. The pacing of walking had been so tied to how people had played the original Call of Duty that the addition drastically altered the way the game was played. In contrast, Reach wasn't as affected by the addition of Sprint as CoD because Halo had always been a quasi-twitch game to begin with due to low gravity and vehicles. There is much less of a change when one adds sprint to Halo than if one adds it to Call of Duty. Especially when the number of times you can actually use the mechanic, the duration and strength of the mechanic, the gunplay mechanics, and the maps all work together in a specific way to bring about an even more pronounced change. If you want to claim that the addition of sprint didn't drastically alter the flow of Call of Duty then you automatically lose any credibility when it comes to that franchise.Vandalvideo
The inclusion of the AA's in Reach represents a far larger evolution than simple sprinting in CoD.
Also, you claim that sprint doesn't impact Halo is wrong, based on the beta. Sprint opens up faster movement around the map, allowing teams the chance to raid power weapons or hold critical map points, even if they said point is already an area heaMy brother and I could sprint to Rocket spawn and kill the Blue team member that drops downs and retrieves rockets before jetpacking back up the bridge at least 50% during the beta. Without sprint, there's no way we we would have been able to get to said jetpacker in time.
On Swordbase, sprinting in the teleporter toward the top floor (the Red capture point in CTF games) would land you on the top floor with 100% success. Without it, the player would normally land a floor below, sacrificing valuable time to stop th capture.
There is also an area on Swordbase know as either the office or Atrium, the area with the stars below a class ceiling. Sprinting allows you to land of this area when running down the stairs, which gives you the opportunity to flank people coming from the grav-lift side door, or simply give you a moments reprieve if being chased by an attacker.
This doesn't take into account the simple benefits of sprinting to throw off a sharpshooters aim, dodge grenades, or come in for the melee. Quite frankly Vandal, you seem to have limited yourself to how much the armor abilities changed the paced of Reach. I find it silly that you can say that sprinting added so much in CoD, yet so quickly throw it to the side in Halo Reach. Let alone things such as the jetpack - which adds an entire other axis to the gameplay, -armor lock, which greatly impacts the infantry-vehicle balance in Halo. Have you ever destroyed a tank in the beta by armor locking at the exact right time to nullify his shot and slowly wearing him down with grenades? Or active camo, which allows for a very predatory like playstyle?
The AA's completely changed the pace of the game, they change how Halo is played. The core gunplay feels like Halo 3, but there are so many nuances that I really don't see how you can say that the pacing is the same. The overall slower movement, slower kill times, and changes in how the maps are designed make it play completely unlike previous Halos. All vehicles went from being powerful tools of destruction Halo 3 to virtual death coffins in the Reach beta - how can you say that a change in CoD's bullet handling is a somehow objectively a larger change the Halo's vehicle health system?
Maybe you haven't played Halo 3, ODST, or Reach as much as I have - either way I can tell you have no idea what you're talking about.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment